Search

Blogs

31 posts from December 2011

December 10, 2011

Tomorrow the Sunday Telegraph will has some provocative comments on the uselessness of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The man controversially appointed to police the jobs of former ministers is on the look out for jobs himself. Lord Lang is. of course, a former minister. I voted against his appointment for precisely that reason. He is part of the revolving door problem not the solution.

Some time again The Independent reported:

"Lord Lang's appointment to Acoba was not without controversy. The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) questioned him and concern was expressed that he had a number

of lucrative directorships. The committee concluded he had the "professional competence and personal independence required" to perform the chairman's job, but said it had "serious concerns about the appointment of a former Cabinet minister with business appointments of his own to a role that needs the perception of independence if it is to attract public confidence".

A Labour member of the committee, Paul Flynn, voted against Lord Lang's appointment and questioned the make-up of Acoba: "There are no waitresses, bus drivers or people independent of the new great and the good on Acoba. They are all people who think it's normal for an MP being paid £65,000 for a full-time job to take on five other jobs."

The Independent article is written by Antony Barnett the investigative journalist who led the Dispatches investigation 'Politicians for Hire'. The programme invited Lord Lang to a sting interview. It was not broadcast even though it was a fascinating insight into the incestuous nature of top appointments.

Barnett discloses today that 'One senior former minister who came in to chat about potential employment was Lord Lang of Monkton. Remember him? He was the Secretary of State for Scotland under Margaret Thatcher and the President of the Board of Trade under John Major. Gordon Brown gave the Conservative peer an important new job: chairman of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or Acoba as it's known.

This is the critical Whitehall committee supposed to be the public's watchdog when it comes to former ministers and senior civil servants taking up jobs in the private sector. Its remit is to ensure that they don't use their government contacts for private gain within two years of leaving office.

The committee has faced criticism that it's toothless. It has no enforcement powers – it can only make recommendations to the Prime Minister.

So what happened when Dispatches contacted Lord Lang, who must safeguard public interest in this area, about taking a job with our fictional company?

In our initial phone exchange Lang expressed a desire to take a job, but made it clear that doing lobbying was out of the question. When we told him Anderson Perry did communications work he said: "PR becomes sensitive. It brings the word 'lobbying' in, which is very sensitive in Parliament."

Despite this "sensitivity", Lang did come into our St James's offices to discuss a possible position on the advisory board of our made-up firm. Once again he made it very clear that he would not do any lobbying for Anderson Perry or its clients, nor would he make any introductions to ministers or civil servants. And he also added for good measure that he would refer any job offer to Acoba, even though he didn't have to.

Lord Lang explained: "I do not charge a day rate but operate under an agreed annual fee, for which I am available as required, around a basic structure of an agreed number of regular meetings." He recommend that we consider hiring the lobbying outfit called Quiller Consultants, a firm with close connections to the Conservative Party.

In a follow-up email to our undercover reporter, Lord Lang wrote: "Jonathan Hill heads it [Quiller], whom I know and respect from his days in 10 Downing Street. It might be worth having a meeting with Jonathan – feel free to mention my name."

Three hours after his interview with our undercover reporter, Lord Lang emailed her his CV saying: "I enjoyed meeting you this morning and was interested in all you had to say." His impressive CV listed his business interests – and as an unpaid member of the House of Lords he is free to earn a living as he wishes. Given Lord Lang's position as chairman of the watchdog, I believe it's important to disclose his interest in a position with our bogus US company, even though he made it clear he would only offer strategic advice.

Lord Lang told The Independent: "I did not express an interest in joining [Anderson Perry]. I went to a meeting to try and find out more about it. I also made it very clear that I would not do corporate lobbying of any kind and I would need to find out a lot more about the company. Most of the members of the committee have business interests, as I do."

Regular readers may recall the dis-agreement among members of PASC that I blogged about previously. My attempt to reject Lang's appointment was frustrated not only because of the merits of the case. This was a unique Retrospective Pre-appointment" hearing. It was a foul-up. Lang had been appointed before we held our hearing. There would have many red-faces if we had rejected an appointment that had already been made.

The next Government must look again at Acoba. The cosy arrangement of former ministers with a clutch of business appointment themselves deciding on the appointments of their pals cannot continue. Independence is essential. That does not include a head of ACOBA who is sending out his CV in search of more lucrative appointments himself.

Had it not been for the idiotic behaviour of Byers-Hoon-Hewitt , the Lord Lang job search could have been a fascinating Dispatches programme in itself.

A Whitehall scandal that's bigger than lobbying?

Revealed: the top public officials involved in awarding companies lucrative contracts - and who then go to work for them

At least four top military officers and government ministers involved with the procurement of two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, which cost more than £6bn, have since joined companies with an interest in the field

It was the week that Bell Pottinger, one of Britain’s largest lobbying firms, was secretly filmed bragging of its intimate access to government. But there is a potentially even worse scandal than lobbying: the practice known as the “revolving door”, where ministers, officials or military officers involved in controversial public-sector contracts then go on to work, at high salaries, for the beneficiaries of those same contracts.

The stakes here are higher than Bell Pottinger’s boast that the Prime Minister will take your phone call. Billions of pounds of public money are on the line. In one of the biggest-spending departments, the Ministry of Defence, almost 250 staff – including 20 generals, admirals or air marshals – have joined defence companies in a single year, new figures obtained by this newspaper show.

And a Sunday Telegraph investigation has established that the organisation supposedly responsible for vetting the most senior “revolving-door” appointments has not vetoed a single application in the last 15 years.

According to the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), it has considered 944 applications for private sector jobs by former top mandarins and ministers since 1996. Of these, 412 were approved with conditions, and 532 – 56 per cent – were approved unconditionally. None was rejected.

Among the most heavily criticised deals of recent years is that for the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers, which will cost taxpayers more than £6 billion, even though one will be immediately mothballed and the other will carry no aircraft until 2020. At least four top military officers and ministers, including the heads of the Navy and the RAF, a former vice-chief of defence staff and the former minister for defence equipment, Ann Taylor, have since joined companies with an interest in the aircraft-carrier project. Their appointments were approved by Acoba.

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned on the issue, said: “Rather than crawling off in shame and going to live in a hut in the Hebrides, some of the people involved in this disaster are taking high office in the companies responsible. I am not suggesting misconduct by any individual here , but the prospect of retirement work is potentially corrupting.”

Acoba is chaired by the Conservative peer and former trade secretary Lord Lang, who himself has an extensive portfolio of business interests, including the chairmanship of Marsh & McLennan, a large business consultancy.

Lord Lang was one of the politicians secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches last year offering his services to a fake lobbying company set up by the programme, though he told them that he would not do any lobbying personally.

According to Mr Flynn, a member of the Commons’ public administration select committee, which conducts pre-appointment hearings into some public posts, the committee wanted to veto Lord Lang’s appointment to Acoba, and did not do so only because the appointment had already been announced.

When Lord Lang appeared before the committee earlier this year, he insisted that Acoba “works extraordinarily well”. The proportion of appointments it approves with conditions – such as that the appointee should not carry out any lobbying for a set period – has risen in recent years. However, Lord Lang admitted that Acoba has “no powers either to police or enforce” its conditions.

The Sunday Telegraph has also established that seven former ministers and top civil servants this year alone did not bother to approach Acoba for approval before taking up private-sector jobs, even though they are obliged to do so. Acoba retrospectively approved six of the jobs, declined to consider the seventh, and took no action other than noting its “concern” on its website. The seven jobs represent a quarter of the cases considered by Acoba so far this year.

Among other cases approved by Acoba in the past 18 months is that of John Suffolk, who has moved from the highly sensitive post of chief information officer at the Cabinet Office to global cybersecurity officer for Huawei, a Chinese company accused by the Pentagon of having “close ties” to China’s military.

Huawei is moving heavily into Britain after being blocked from expansion in America amid security fears. Its activities are currently being probed by the US House of Representatives’ intelligence committee. Huawei denies any intelligence links and Acoba has imposed a condition that Mr Suffolk must not “draw on any privileged information” from his time at the Cabinet Office, though it is unclear how this can be enforced.

Acoba has also recently green-lighted the moves of three top officials and a former minister to lobbying companies. Sir Brian Bender, former permanent secretary at the Department for Business, joined Mandate Communications. Acoba gave unconditional approval without even imposing the normal 12-month ban on lobbying government.

Lord Hunt, the former Labour health minister, was cleared to join Cumberledge Connections, a health lobbyist run by a former Tory health minister, Baroness Cumberledge, with a 12-month ban on lobbying government.

Sir Liam Donaldson, former chief medical officer, was cleared in May to work for the lobbyist Acpo Worldwide. Although Acoba approved the appointment with a 12-month ban on lobbying government, the ban took effect from Sir Liam’s last day in office, which was in May last year, so he was able to lobby from his first day in his new job. Acoba has never imposed a lobbying ban of more than two years. Lord Lang told MPs that longer bans would be a “restraint of trade” and against the applicant’s human rights.

Many other former ministers have taken up posts in areas for which they previously had responsibility, with Acoba’s approval. Baroness Smith of Basildon, the former Cabinet Office minister responsible for government information technology, has joined Vertex Data Science, a computer outsourcing company.

Lord Knight, the former employment and schools minister, has joined a training company which has many contracts with his former departments or bodies funded by them.

The most controversial area, however, is in defence, which is plagued by colossally expensive contracts delivering poor value for taxpayers. Acoba does not consider jobs taken by military officers below the rank of general, admiral or air marshal, or civil servants below the rank of director. Such lower-level appointments are cleared by the MoD and figures are not easily accessible.

However, Freedom of Information Act requests show that in 2009/10, the latest available year, 326 MoD officials or military officers were cleared to join the private sector. Of these, 240 – almost three-quarters – went to defence sector employers.Mr Flynn said that there “must be some connection” between the MoD’s overspending on its contracts and the fact that so many of its staff go on to work for defence contractors.

“This is potentially even worse than lobbying,” he said. “Thirty years ago, top public sector jobs were seen as the pinnacle of someone’s career. You were never going to do anything more important. Now, the danger is that they are seen as merely a stepping stone to private-sector riches – and that, rather than serving the taxpayer, becomes your prime objective.”

A spokeswoman for Acoba said that a number of ministers’ and officials’ applications for job approval had been withdrawn because of advice that Acoba provided. These figures were not included in the annual reports, she said.

She added that Acoba’s membership was a matter for the Prime Minister and she defended Lord Lang’s role, saying that in the Dispatches sting “no offer of employment of any kind was made or accepted”, and that Lord Lang would have cleared any such offer with Acoba before taking it up.

December 09, 2011

Today he surrendered to his far right little Englanders. He does not have the guts to call a referendum so he took the line of least resistance.

Tory MP Alun Cairns put a brave face on it and tweeted support. It would have been convincing if the tweets did not begin at 4.00 am. Was the anxiety so painful that he could not sleep? Whatever Cameron was thinking of it was not Wales. Whatever else Alun was thinking of, his marginal seat was uppermost.

Weakening the links with Europe threatens the £1billion that Wales has from the EU each year. Most goes to subsidise farmers. They still get 40% of the budget. Objective One takes some of the rest. Wales does not contribute £1billion into the pot. Wales' economy depends on Europe. Cameron's vain attempt to silence his backbenchers could bring painful consequences in Wales.

From the Independent November

Liam Fox, Adam Werritty

This odd trio met six times - not that the Government wants you to know that, of course. What did they discuss? Did it include Iran? And who exactly is Adam Werritty? Brian Brady investigates a Whitehall mystery which is slowly unravelling

They were the Odd Couple: the men with identical morning suits, matching jackets and jeans but from radically different generations. They commanded more column inches than any X Factor wannabe. The Mysterious Case of the Defence Secretary and the Strange Bloke with the Cheap Business Card gripped us all, until it culminated in Liam Fox's resignation.

What on earth had they been up to, the nation wondered. The plot thickened somewhat when an official inquiry confirmed that the curious duo was in fact, at times, a trio. They had had two meetings with Matthew Gould, Britain's ambassador to Israel, adding to claims that they were running a pirate (pro-Israel, or anti-Iranian?) foreign policy. Then, before we had got to know Adam Werritty properly, it all went quiet.

He has not been seen in the UK or abroad for several months; no neighbour has reported his presence at any of the various addresses unearthed when he was being sought by every news outlet in the country.

However, the trail has not gone cold because it emerges that Liam Fox and his adviser met Britain's ambassador at least four times more than was previously admitted. So why were we not told this before? Isn't this yet more evidence that they were operating outside the control of the Foreign Office?

The fog seems to extend even to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, whose report into the affair, which sealed Dr Fox's fate, identified just the two meetings between the former minister, Mr Werritty and Mr Gould.

The three men met in Tel Aviv at "a private dinner with senior Israelis" and, before Mr Gould took up the ambassador's post in Tel Aviv, for "a general discussion of international defence and security matters". Sir Gus observed that Mr Werritty was invited "as an individual with some experience in these matters".

Even this was a bit unsatisfactory, said Sir Gus. His report highlighted the September 2010 meeting in the UK with Mr Gould, then the UK ambassador-designate to Israel, ruling that "as a private citizen, with no official locus, it was not appropriate for Mr Werritty to have attended this meeting".

Yet it has been left to the former UK ambassador Craig Murray to uncover four more similar meetings – although Sir Gus claimed last week that "some of those ... took place before the election".

The suspicion of even more secret meetings, an inquiry which did not cover all the ground and the spectre of a favourite bogeyman is a gift to conspiracy theorists. However there are legitimate questions to be answered. The IoS revealed last month that Mr Werritty had visited Iran on several occasions and was so highly regarded by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad that he was able to arrange meetings at the highest levels of the Israeli government.

The disclosure that he – and Dr Fox – had met Britain's most senior official in Israel on more occasions than previously thought underlines their interest in the region.

The Labour MP Paul Flynn questioned why the official inquiry into the Fox affair had failed to investigate all the activities of Mr Werritty. He asked the Cabinet Secretary, during his appearance before the Public Administration Select Committee: "Are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated because of the nature of Mr Werritty's interests?"

The accusation was not received well. Sir Gus rejected any criticism of his work, noting instead that: "If you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election." Mr Murray, however, has established that there have been at least five meetings altogether since the election and one beforehand.

Sir Gus added that "some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what [Dr Fox] was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me."

Craig Murray submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Foreign Office very late one night last week, asking for all communications between Mr Gould and Mr Werritty; barely an hour later, he received a rejection, explaining that his request was "likely to exceed the cost limit". Given that Freedom of Information requests normally take at least a fortnight to be answered, the swift, late-night reaction has done nothing to douse suspicions.

"It is plainly nonsense that to gather correspondence between two named individuals would be too expensive," Mr Murray said. "They could just ask Gould."

The Foreign Office remains nonplussed by questions about Mr Gould's conduct. "The FCO has total confidence that Matthew Gould has acted appropriately at all times and at no stage was he acting independently, or out of line with government policy," a spokesman said yesterday.

Clearly not satisfied with the efforts of Sir Gus and his attempts to question him last week, Paul Flynn is calling for a wider investigation. He said: "Witnesses before a select committee have said that the inquiry into the Werritty affair was rushed and inadequate, and possibly in breach of the ministerial code as it was not conducted by the only person who is the enforcer of the code: the independent adviser on ministerial affairs [Sir Philip Mawer].

"As the inquiry was conducted for reasons of political expediency to avoid embarrassment for the Government, and as new evidence is available, should we not have a full legitimate inquiry conducted by Sir Philip?"

The demand has, so far, received a response that would make Sir Gus's reaction seem enthusiastic.

Guardian Diary

• The truth will out, and who hasn't been enjoying the leaked email spat between Conservative MP Colonel Bob Stewart and Michael Fabricant, one of the Tory whips. Fabricant ordered the troops to get down to the Feltham and Heston byelection in west London. Stewart, while willing to do his bit, didn't care for Fabricant's tone or the whip's decision to communicate directly with MPs' staff. "Who the hell do you think you are? I am furious. My staff do not work for the party and your email is thus illegal," Bob said. Having done his bit in Feltham, Col Bob dismissed the whole thing as a lost cause, the Tory campaign as a shambles – and he complained that those he encountered made him less than welcome. That's what happens, sometimes, blogs mischievous Labour man Paul Flynn. And Flynn, who takes no pleasure in Tory discomfort, has a tale about Peter Tatchell, then a would-be MP, trying to connect with a potential voter over the intercom. "You can trust me. I come from round here," pleaded Tatchell. "I wouldn't trust anyone who comes from round here," said the voter. "Bugger off."

December 08, 2011

Today at Commons Business Question I raised the issue that should be top of our agenda. It's not even on our agenda.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):A total of 179 gallant British soldiers died in Iraq as a result of a decision of this House that was based on a deception. Some 383 died in Helmand as a result of a decision that was based on the hope that not a shot would be fired. When can we debate early-day motion 2515, in order to discuss the dreadful threat of a potential war in Iran?

[That this House is alarmed that the UK is stumbling towards a war in Iran that would have dreadful, unforeseeable consequences; recalls that in the past the momentum of preparations for war has frequently led to major wars; and urges the Government to seek to reduce tension, pursue conflict resolution and cease war preparations.]

The current war of words might become a war of weapons.

Sir George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about those who lost their lives in conflict. We had a debate in Government time relatively recently on a range of countries that included Iran—I am not sure whether he was able to take part in that debate—so I cannot promise another early debate on the middle east and related areas. As I said earlier in response to another question, he may want to put in for the pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate or apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.

December 07, 2011

There was an adjournment debate in the Commons tonight. I had some time to fill between doing interviews on Radio Five Live and Radio Wales about the threat of war in Iran. I wandered in to hear the wind-up speech from Lib-Dem minister Lynne Featherstone. She was not entirely comfortable in her role.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Other forms of animal abuse involve small numbers—hundreds or thousands—of animals, but in comparison animal experiments involve them in their millions. Will the Minister tell me how many animals are subjected to experiments now and what she hopes the numbers will be in 2015?

Lynne Featherstone: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on the absolute numbers. I am not sure whether he means every animal in every experiment. What I am looking at in respect of the coalition commitment is whether we can use absolute numbers, how we should count genetically modified animals that receive no other harm, and what impact would be made if this country’s scientific community were to attract more investment. I am looking for something substantive, so that we can know exactly where we are with animal usage in experiments and so that I can deliver the coalition commitment in real terms.

Paul Flynn: If the Minister looks at the research findings, she will find that thalidomide was tested on rabbits, and tested on pregnant rabbits. Only when it was tested again on a particular strain of rabbit did the deformities appear. That is an example of a major failure of animal testing.

Lynne Featherstone: I accept that it was a major failure, as was the testing of Vioxx, notably in the case of the six gentlemen who went for trials. However, I am sure that if I asked my officials to find examples of test results that have been beneficial to mankind and saved many lives, we would see the other side of the coin. I do not think absolute policy should ever be based on specific and exceptional incidents, but we all work constantly to improve the situation.

Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Lynne Featherstone: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is more of an expert than I am.

Paul Flynn: The Minister has been very generous in giving way.

In the case of Vioxx and Seroxat, both of which have had major adverse side-effects, the problem seems to lie with the regulatory body. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is funded entirely by the pharmaceutical industry. Until we have some independent control, the suspicion will always be there that the one who pays the piper calls the tune for commercial gain.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, but my hon. Friend’s main point seemed to be that the human trials of Vioxx revealed an issue of which no one took any notice.

I think that my hon. Friend went a bit too far in suggesting—if I heard him aright—that animal models could not, or perhaps could only rarely, be used effectively to find treatments for human diseases. I believe that they have contributed hugely to the development of drugs that have saved lives.

December 06, 2011

There will be no announcement until tomorrow on whether Andrew Dilnot will be appointed to the key job as Chairman of the Statistics Authority. But Swansea boy Andrew performed impressively at the pre-appointment hearing in the Commons today.

History was made when the previous candidate appeared before the Public Administration Committee. There was less enthusiasm from the committee and the recommended candidate withdrew. It is essential for the security of the hundreds of Newport jobs in the Office for National Statistics that a tough line is taken to protect the integrity of statistics produced.

There was hardly a flicker of excitement from MPs or press in 2007 when the Statistics Bill went through Parliament - with one exception. Andrew Dilnot wrote that this was the most valuable and important bill that Labour produced in ten years of Government. I asked him today whether he still agrees. He does.

Andrew finds statistics a great turn-on. He pronounces the word lovingly. If he is appointed the case for defending the value of the work of my statistician constituents will be stoutly defended and promoted.

December 05, 2011

A mixed bag of topics in Parliament this afternoon. There was a chance to raise the issue that Labour sold council houses a decade before Thatcher did, for in our cases for good socialist reasons. The reply did not help much.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the debt that the Thatcher Government owed to the policies advanced a decade earlier by the Labour councils in Newport and Leicester in selling council houses, because they believed that the experience was that rent is theft?

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): As the policy rests on the trust in the regulatory body that was tardy in protecting patients against the adverse side effects of Vioxx and Seroxat, is it not time that we had a fully independent MHRA and not one that is funded entirely by the pharmaceutical industry? As big pharma pays the piper, is it not possible that it will call the tune for its own commercial interests?

Mr Lansley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The MHRA operates, in scientific and expert terms, in an independent fashion. In so far as it is accountable, it is accountable to me as Secretary of State and to this House. It is not accountable to the pharmaceutical industry. If he is proposing a major transfer of costs from the pharmaceutical industry to the taxpayer, I am afraid that I do not agree with him.

Seminar please, Mr Speaker

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Great progress has been made, principally as a result of your work, in ensuring that exchanges in this House at question times are briefer and pithier than previously, but there is one area of weakness. May I suggest that it might be a good idea if you organised a seminar for Ministers on the existence, purpose and use of the full stop?

Mr Speaker: I appreciate the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman. Self-knowledge would be a starter, and until such exists, I am not sure that the turnout would be quite what I might wish, but we will reflect on the matter, and I am grateful to him, as always.

December 04, 2011

I like Bob Stewart. I like Michael Fabricant too. The two have fallen out.

Sad that I have finally wrapped up my book writing. This glorious vignette reveals so much about parliamentary life. It could have happened in any party. This time it is the Tories who fell out over the coming by-election.

All parties play the same game. As there is little enthusiasm from party workers for by-electioneering, MPs are summoned into the fray. As Bob hilariously reveals our help is largely symbolic. In the past I have travelled to remote cities, had a cup of tea and a pep talk, then out in search of floating voters. If it’s a good day half a dozen can be found among the mass of voters who have made up their minds or will not vote. The value of these MP campaigns is usually zero.

All parties fool themselves that they are running well-oiled campaigns. Bosnian veteran Bob reveals that the Tory effort in this by-election is ‘a shambles’. He is splendidly outspoken. Michael Fabricant’s wheeze was to try to gee things up by inciting MPs’ staff to ensure that their bosses were on paraded in Heston. Not a good idea Mike. Thanks to some kind soul who is devoted to transparency we have the full e-mails posted last Thursday.

BOMBSHELL: THAT EMAIL ROW

From: Michael FabricantTo Tory Staffers Dear Staffer As you will know, the Feltham and Heston By-Election will be held on December 15 – just 2 weeks’ time. We are asking every MP to donate 3 x half-days to this Campaign. If you haven’t already done so, please make sure he or she does so!! And we would welcome staffers too – we always value the work you do – though the rules mean you must do this in your spare time as you cannot use public funds (IPSA) to subsidise campaigning. Finally, from now on, you will be included in all the Bulletins sent to MPs so they have no excuse when they ‘accidentally’ delete my important messages! All the best, Michael

After being forwarded Michael Fabricant’s memo by a member of his office staff, Bob Stewart replies:

From: Bob StewartTo: Michael Fabricant Michael, This is way out of line. You have no right to by-pass me and speak to my staff without my leave. Who the hell do you think you are? I am furious. My staff do not work for the party and your email is thus illegal. As it happens I took one of my staff down there this morning (on a day off) but now, not again. For your information I have spent the morning and early afternoon in Feltham & Heston. There was no proper welcome and no briefing prior to me going out canvassing. It was hugely discouraging. I did two estate roads, flats and houses while there. The vast majority of people were out and those that were in wouldn’t open the door. I don’t blame them for that.

As I was canvassing there was a drugs raid and the UK Border Agency were doing a simultaneous operation. We probably looked like people from the Social Services, Police, Special Branch or UK Border Agency. There is absolutely no chance of us winning there. I wasted my time all day today and I will not be doing so again. In case there is any doubt I am amazed you sent such an email to my staff. It was a crass thing to do and I demand it doesn’t happen again. Bob Stewart

From: Michael FabricantTo: Bob Stewart I am sorry you are upset but I have to say I have never received such a pompous and ridiculous email before. I thought at first you were joking. Have a wonderful weekend. Michael

This description of electioneering rings true for all of us experienced canvassers. In London, I have canvassed for half a day without meeting anyone face-to-face. If you lucky you can someone talk to someone over an intercom. Peter Tatchell tells the story of his attempt to meet a voter who was reluctant to come to the door. The exchange over the inter-com went.

Tatchell: I’m the candidate will you open the door for me?

Voter: Bugger off.

Tatchell; Come on, you can trust me. I come from round here.

Voter: I wouldn’t trust anyone who comes from round here. Bugger off.

In a caricature of a reply taken from the manual of ‘Obvious Be-election Comments’ a Conservative spokesman said: ‘We are fighting hard across the constituency and receiving a very positive feedback on the doorstep. There’s all to play for.’ Of course all parties say that.

However many MPs toil in Feltham and Heston the result will be a low poll with a Labour win with an increased share of the vote. Anyone wishing to believe otherwise please contact me. Profits from any bet agreed will go to charity.

December 03, 2011

We were friends at university together in the early fifties. Bob was middle-aged then, even though he was only about five years older that the rest of us. He had a hinterland having spent some years in the real world before he became a student at University College Cardiff. We were close friends there with Mike Bloxsome, Dewi Lewis and Graham Horwood.

There was a shocking incident in his first job as a curate in Penarth. The world has moved on and it's difficult to explain the scandal when Bob joined the local British Legion Club. His reason scandalised his critics in the Church. He said it was the only place he could get a drink on a Sunday. The universal now was a daring break with tradition in the days when the pubs and churches were closed on a Sunday.

Bob combined his work as a Pastor in Ely in Cardiff with a full political life in the 35 years he was there. He eventually became the Leader of the Labour Group on South Glamorgan Council. Ely was not a fashionable or an easy parish. I know he decided that this tough council estate was his vocation. The whole family were political. Bob's wife Elaine also served on the Council. Their daughter Eluned became a member of the European Parliament and is now a member of the House of Lords.

I was canvassing with Elaine and Bob in Cardigan some years ago in a bye-election. We were struggling on a wind swept council estate in heavy rain, knocking up voters from a sodden and disintegrating election register. The party battle bus arrived blaring out an incomprehensible message. they kindly stopped to greet us. In side was the candidate Maria Battle and a full team of 40-something MPs and working. They were soon off again leaving we three septuagenarians, cold, shivering and soaking on the summit of the hill.

Bob and Elaine had a rapturous marriage. Their company was always a joy. Bob packed a couple of lifetimes of service into his 83 years. His was a happy life.

The warring society?

Had a call from a reporter today talking about equality.

Can this be true? A news story on a serious subject. At Business Question in the Commons this week I asked, if giving to the few not the many and describing the principled sacrifice of more than a million strikers as a damp squib was likely to create a Big Society or a Divided Society? Polly Toynbee said last week Osborne cut wealth for the richest 10% by 3% and the poorest 30% by 16%.

The three most significant incidents in the Coalition's life have been the two million who marched against the cuts, the riots and the biggest strike for decades. Remember the promise of a Big Society? Its guru Phillip Blond said that it will fail unless the country turns to Christian values.

There is no precedent in my lifetime for the financial slump that may be ahead. The coalition may rue the months when they carelessly deepened the already unjust divisions in society.

December 02, 2011

The Guardian reports

Having closed down a massively loss-making mixed-oxide fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield, the government amazes Greenpeace by proposing to build a new one

The government has astonished the anti-nuclear lobby by outlining plans to spend £3bn of public money building a new mixed-oxide fuel (Mox) plant – months after announcing the closure of a similar facility that lost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds.

Energy minister Charles Hendry said Britain could not continue to keep the world's largest civilian stockpile of used plutonium stored at the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. It should be converted into Mox fuel for possible use in a new generation of thermal light water reactors.

In a written statement to MPs, Hendry said the government had gathered enough information to be confident Mox was the right direction and was now "preferred policy".

But he added: "Only when the government is confident that its preferred option could be implemented safely and securely, that it is affordable, deliverable and offers value for money, will it be in a position to proceed with a new Mox plant."

The statement angered green campaigners, who noted that the first Mox plant at Sellafield in Cumbria had been plagued by financial and operating problems. Its original cost was £250m but by 2004 it had cost £600m.

"Despite the failure of the Sellafield Mox plant to produce fuel at the designed throughput, it has nonetheless safely manufactured Mox fuel which has been successfully burned in reactors, it said.

Douglas Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, said the government's plans made no sense at a time of squeezed public spending and worries about funding solar and wind plants.

He said: "This is crazynomics – the reality is that the nuclear fairytale is a nuclear nightmare. Having announced the closure of a Mox plant because it was colossally inefficient and because there was no market for its service, the government now wants to build another one that will fast become a hugely expensive white elephant.

"This proposal will lead to a subsidised plant creating subsidised fuel so that subsidised operators can produce subsidised electricity and then receive subsidised waste disposal. The only winners in this are the nuclear operators, already rich with their 18% domestic fuel price rises this year."

The government has been cutting budgets for solar power, triggering a warning from builder Carillion that it expected to lay off 4,500 staff.

Phew! It's all over.

At 9.00 this morning my work on a new book was over.

Yesterday was fraught as frantic last minuter changes were made. The distinguished writer of the foreword was given the daunting task on Monday of reading 75,000 words and writing his foreword of 400 words by last night. At 6.30 the beautifully crafted words were e-mailed to me. I am very grateful.

The book will be launched in the middle of January in suitable parliamentary surroundings. It's written on a similar stucture to Commons Knowledge but it is a longer and more substantial book. Some of the best loved stories have been retained. They are worth re-reading. The main theme is the thrilling world of the new parliament. It is unique and changed utterly by the influence of Speaker Bercow, the Wright reforms and especially the overhang of the expenses scandal.

There are many new sections on How to e-petition, How to Eulogise, How to get it Wright and How to die. Ten commandments were in Commons Knowledge. There are 30 in the new book. As the world of parliament is in constant turmoil, last minute adjustments are essential. At 9.00 this morning the forward and final version were e-mailed for printing. Ahhhhhh!

The book is dedicated to my friend the late David Taylor MP. I am halfway writing a biography of him whic I hope to complete it in a few months.

For the suspicious I must repeat. As always I will make no money personally from the book. That's one of the strict rules I have urged on others since 1987. We should live on our handsome wages. Additional money should be redistributed to good causes. The Wales on Sunday newspaper on at least four occasions whinged abou money they claimed I receieved for the serial rights of my last book. Eventually they apologised.